Barney and Me

"The misery of keeping a dog is his dying so soon. But, to be sure, if he lived for fifty years and then died, what would become of me?" – (Sir Walter Scott)



If you haven’t seen the photo of the guy in the water holding his old, arthritic dog; you just weren’t paying attention. And the story that goes with the photo inspires and at the same time breaks your heart.

If you’re a dog person, or just a human being with a heart, you can’t look at that photo and not get a lump in your throat. It really hit me. We have dogs, two very friendly Bichons, Dillon and Boudreaux. They are amusing little guys, low maintenance and great house pets. But once upon a time, we had a real dog. His name was Barney and he was an English Springer Spaniel. The best dog ever. He moved all over the country with us and could handle just about anything or anyone. He was smart, loyal, gentle and absolutely fearless.

Not counting my wife, he was my best friend. But when he died I wasn’t there. Why I wasn’t there is another story and it will be someone else’s to tell someday when I’m not around. But I wasn’t there when he took that long, last ride to the vet. Thankfully my wife was there and to this day she cannot stand to watch the similar scene as it plays out in the movie Marley and Me.

Maybe it was for the best that I wasn’t there. I just don’t know. But I do believe that our dogs will be there for us when we get to heaven. And they will come running to greet us and not only love us, but forgive us for taking so long to get there. (Hell, I can’t even write this post without crying.)

Thanks For Wasting My Time (Part 4)

Some weeks back I started this series on the most significant “time wasters” we face in the headhunting business:

_The Client does not really know what they want.
_The Client is not willing to pay for what they want.
_The Client has too many people involved in the process.

This week, I’ll wrap things up with a few comments about the “too many people involved” time waster. This has actually become the Number 1 Time Waster because it usually comes into play late in the process. Most of the time we can tell when a client doesn’t know what they want or knows what they want but aren’t willing to pay for it BEFORE we get in too deep. But when it comes to getting “too many people involved” in the interviewing and hiring process; this deal-killing, time-waster usually doesn’t show up until the final interview. If you’ve ever been in sales, you also know this as the “hidden decision maker(s)”.

Anytime we take a search assignment we always ask who will be involved in the interview process and who will make the hiring decision. Most of the time what we are told is not the way things ultimately play out. The reality is that when it comes time for the “final round of interviews”, many organizations grab whoever is available to interview the candidate. So we not only end up with too many people, we often end up with the wrong people. Three things can happen and two of them are bad. The good outcome is that the interviewers all like the candidate and the candidate is still interested in the job after running the interview gauntlet. The two bad outcomes are that one or more of the interviewers doesn’t like the candidate; or that the candidate gets turned off on the opportunity after interviewing with people who weren’t really “invested” in filling the position or may even be downright opposed to seeing the position filled by an “outsider”.

Another factor here is that increasingly we see companies essentially “hire by committee”. I agree that candidates need to be interviewed by multiple people. It’s good for the candidate as well as for the company. But they need to be the “right people” and they need to ask the “right questions”. And when the interviews are completed, all of those involved need to get together at the same time and make their case for or against hiring the candidate. (Some people will disagree with this approach and prefer to have the hiring authority or HR gather the interviewers' feedback one by one. In my opinion, if the interviewers cannot collectively discuss the interview results, then you've got the wrong people involved in the process.) And if the decision is not to hire, the search firm must be told the reasons for that decision. (Of course, whether or not those reasons are shared with the candidate is a matter of judgment and discretion, not to mention legal liability.)

Unfortunately, many companies do not have a good interview process. And it doesn’t improve if you just keep adding more people to the process. It gets progressively worse. As a result, too often the interviewer with the loudest voice (position and/or influence with the willingness to use them) ends up making the decision, not the hiring authority or even the hiring authority and their team. And in the current business environment where people get more blame for doing something that doesn’t work than for doing nothing that doesn’t work, it is much safer to not hire if there is even one dissenting opinion. So the more people involved in the process, the more likely that someone, for whatever reason is likely to say no, or maybe just “yea but”, and kill the deal.

As a headhunter all you can do is ask the questions up front, see what happens and learn from experience. It would be great if all searches were done on a retainer or we simply got paid by the hour. Then the time wasters might be less inclined to waste our time since they would also be wasting their money. But as long as there are enough idiots like me out there who are willing to work on contingency, I am afraid that the time wasters will keep doing business as usual.

Shootings and Sanctions

Decided to take a break from writing the final installment of the “Thanks For Wasting My Time” series. The Colorado shootings and the latest from Happy Valley deserve some attention. There are old posts out there related to both subjects: “Happy Valley” (Nov 10, 2011) and “Why Are We Shocked” (Jan 15, 2011).

“Why Are We Shocked” was written after the Giffords/Tucson shootings. I closed with these words:

“Why are we shocked when a mentally ill person commits a violent crime? Why are we shocked when we find out that a violent act was committed by someone “under the influence”? Why are we shocked that someone did not do something sooner when all the signs were there? Why are we shocked? BECAUSE WE CANNOT FACE REALITY. We cannot face the reality of a problem that is so huge and so unmanageable, that we know it will happen again. So we pacify ourselves by agreeing to “tone down the rhetoric”, to engage in “more civil discourse”, to be nice and respectful, to not use violent metaphors as we compete in politics, sports and commerce. We agree to tip-toe through the crazies and pray that we are not their next target. Why are we shocked?”

Considering this latest incident, I can only say that WE MUST FACE REALITY. While a nutjob like this guy in Colorado might have hit the theater with homemade explosives had he not had guns, the REALITY IS that he did have guns…automatic weapons capable of firing a lot of rounds really fast. Thankfully, his assault rifle jammed or more people would likely have died. The REALITY is that we don’t need people owning these types of weapons. I have guns…revolvers, shotguns and bolt-action rifles. I usually hit what I’m aiming at and I don’t need extra firepower for sport or self-defense. It’s just too easy for any fool to purchase guns that are designed to spray massive amounts of lead in seconds. I know…Guns don’t kill people, people do. It’s just that some guns enable people to kill more than they might otherwise be able to do. Let’s at least address this issue. Will it completely stop crazy people from going on a rampage? No, but it will take some weapons out of their hands.

Then there is Penn State. Other than a few blindly loyal Penn State supporters, I may be the only person in America who thinks the NCAA sanctions were overkill and inappropriate. Here is the REALITY. A terrible and horrific crime has been committed. The guilty parties will be punished if not in criminal court, certainly in civil court. The saddest reality is that victims can never be made whole and their lives are forever ruined. Nothing can make up for that. But they will ultimately receive significant compensatory damages that will do a lot more for them and their families than any sanctions imposed by the NCAA. The reality is that the NCAA should have stayed out of it. But they caved in to public opinion and media pressure. If Penn State chooses to take down Joe Pa’s statue, it’s probably the right call and certainly theirs to make. Should the NCAA have taken away Penn State’s wins from 1998-2011? Taken away scholarships, no bowl games for four years? I’m not so sure. It has symbolic value and perhaps a victim somewhere feels better for it. But, in my opinion, it’s more about the NCAA trying to make the NCAA look good. And we can only hope that some judge or jury in a future civil litigation will not reduce a victim’s award because “poor Penn State has already paid so dearly.”

Penn State is suffering and will suffer for many years. I said back in November, that because Penn State chose to look the other way their “recovery will be long and painful and, perhaps never totally complete.” That certainly appears to be the case. But let’s hope it’s not just because their football team will be less competitive for a few years under the NCAA sanctions. I think Paterno, his coaching staff, the leadership at Penn State and countless others in the community including law enforcement officers were uncomfortable with Sandusky and his relationships with the boys in the Second Mile Foundation. But like a family protecting one of its own, they chose to believe the best about Sandusky and the worst about the boys and the parents who expressed fear and concern over Sandusky’s behavior. In the light of day and with all of the facts in the open, it’s clear that Sandusky was not just being given the benefit of doubt; but that the people around him were deliberately deaf, dumb and blind in not recognizing what he was up to. They should and will face the full measure of legal consequences for their failure to act. But when it comes to the sanctions, the NCAA should have punted.

Thanks For Wasting My Time (Part 3)

Last week we wrote about how often clients really aren’t sure what they want. Even if they have a job description it may not go beyond outlining broad areas of responsibility, basic qualifications and a compensation range. This week we’ll look at those clients who know what they want (or eventually figure it out), but aren’t willing to pay for it.

The Number One reason why clients are not willing to pay for what they want is that they cannot make it work within their existing compensation structure. Called “salary compression”, it boils down to this…it creates a lot of problems if a company brings in people from outside and pays them more than they pay their existing employees. Even if the company creates a new job level and title to justify the difference, employees soon figure out that the new hire is basically doing the same job they are doing and getting paid a lot more to do it. But isn’t compensation information confidential? How would they know? People talk. They will find out. They always find out.

So if the client cannot “afford” to hire the talent they really need without upsetting their current employees; what do they do? They call the “headhunter genie” who can surely find A+ talent for B- compensation. That’s why our fees are so outrageous, isn’t it?(No, actually our fees are what they are for a variety of reasons. Come to think of it, that’s a great subject...think I’ll write about it when I finish this series).

The reality is that there is no free lunch, there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny and Elvis is way dead. A headhunter may well find you A+ talent for something less than A+ compensation, but likely it won’t be much less and don’t expect more than one or two candidates. Compensation tends to find its competitive equilibrium. Unrealistic expectations with regard to compensation, whether the client’s or the candidate’s, is always a red flag for headhunters. When it is clear that the client is unwilling to step up to the required level of compensation, we only have two options: walk away from the search assignment or convince the client to lower their expectations.

The second reason that some clients are not willing to pay for what they want is that they are just cheap. Add patience along with tough negotiating skills and you are in for a long, painful search assignment. Some companies just operate that way, especially in the transportation and logistics markets. It’s a thin margin business where companies are fighting for fractions of pennies. A company cannot afford to overpay for anything and they are always shopping for the best deal. I get that and I’m ok with working under those conditions, up to a point. If the client is way too cheap and way too picky, it's just not worth it.

As noted above, our fees also play a factor. Most companies hate to use a search firm. They think our fees are too high and they should be able to find people without using us. So when they do resort to using us, they try to rationalize it by either going low on compensation or high on candidate requirements. Many times, after we’ve worked a search for weeks trying to find that perfect candidate at the right price, the client will hire someone on their own or promote from within. The person they end up hiring will meet few of the requirements we were given. But the client did not have to pay a fee.

Buying talent on the cheap is not a good long-term strategy. I understand the “salary compression” issue. Some of our clients are in low-cost markets or markets where there is a large supply of talent. They have been able to build a high-performing organization while maintaining a very conservative approach to compensation. If they have to go outside and hire, it’s tough. Usually we end up striking a balance between job requirements and compensation. Ultimately we may have to find a candidate who has other reasons for wanting to join that company in that location. It’s not always all about the money.

But if a company is consistently hiring on the cheap relative to their competition, watch out. These tend to be the ultimate time-wasters and search firms do neither themselves nor their candidates any favors by working with such companies.

Next time we’ll look at perhaps the mother of all time wasters…too many people involved in the hiring process.

Thanks For Wasting My Time (Part 2)

Now we get to the biggie when it comes to delays and indecision in the search process…The Client (aka The Employer, The Company, The Hiring Authority.) If you want to know where job searches go to die, just follow some companies through their interview and hiring process. What you will see are missed interviews, rescheduled interviews, changing job requirements, low-ball salary offers and poor communication within the organization and with the candidate/search firm. You will likely see a lot more, but when you boil it all down the problems are related to three major issues:

_The Client does not really know what they want.
_The Client is not willing to pay for what they want.
_The Client has too many people involved in the process.


Each of these issues has multiple “issues” of their own, but we see common themes across many different organizations.

So why would a Client not really know what they want? First it’s worth noting that many clients know exactly what they want and are consistent throughout the search process. Headhunters enjoy working for these clients and give them priority. But a significant number of clients either don’t know what they want or change their minds as the search progresses. Headhunters can be slow learners at times, but eventually they figure out who these clients are and work with them accordingly.

And then there are job descriptions. The client will say that if you are a capable search firm, their job description contains all you should need to know about the position. Unfortunately, most job descriptions are too general, too “HR-ish” and too “buzz-worded”. Best case they may provide a first level filter for sifting through candidates. When it gets down to interviewing and making critical decisions, the Client may still not really know what they need from the position. So they hire the candidate “everyone felt good about”. Which often means they end up hiring a great candidate but for the wrong job.

So for the search firm; dealing with a Client who does not know what they want becomes a process of Q&A, investigation and what-if’s. If we are fortunate enough to be dealing with the ultimate hiring authority and decision-maker, we may be successful. But if we are dealing with HR or a hiring authority that really doesn’t have much authority and is not THE decision-maker, the odds of success go down considerably. And the time investment necessarily goes up. We end up playing show and tell with a variety of candidates; and usually not the highest quality, under-the-radar candidates who tend to resist being “demo-ed” for poorly defined job opportunities. If we take on this type of search, we can only hope that we are not facing either of the other two hurdles.


Next week we’ll take on “The Client is not willing to pay for what they want”.

Thanks For Wasting My Time

“You can't always get what you want.
But if you try sometimes…well, you might find,
You get what you need.”
-The Rolling Stones


Back in late May I wrote about the problems we are having with delays and indecision in the search process. After taking a break to write about WWOOF, I am now back on task.
As noted back in May, we are having “issues” with candidates as well as clients. So this week, I am focusing on the candidate side.

I think there are four major factors which are making it difficult for candidates to make a decision regarding a job change these days:

_Job Security
_Relocation
_Compensation & Benefits
_Ennui

We work primarily with mid-career professionals. These are folks who have been around the industry for at least ten years and in many cases twenty+ years. They have been through the good times and the bad times. They know that the grass is not always greener on the other side. Job security is important to them. They have either had a bad experience with a job change or know someone who has. So even though they may be unhappy in their current situation, the fear of making a job change will keep them from pulling the trigger.

However, their fear doesn’t keep them from “kicking the tires” on new job opportunities. And with the easy access to information via company websites, job boards and social networks, we are seeing more of these “tire kickers” testing the water via search firms. It’s a low risk way for them to test the market and “just see what’s out there.” Many of them will even pursue an opportunity, interview and go all the way to an offer before finally deciding that they are better off staying put. Thanks for wasting my time. The challenge for the search firm is figuring out up front how motivated the candidate is to actually make a job change and what are they really looking for.

Relocation is obviously a huge issue. Most of our placements involve moving, so we have a lot of relocation wounds and battle scars. It’s always been an issue, but the collapse of the housing market has elevated it to an insurmountable hurdle for many candidates. The trap for recruiters is that a lot of candidates don’t want to admit it until they have an offer in hand. The recruiter really needs to go through a “relocation reality check” early on in the process. If the candidate is financially upside down on their house, his or her spouse has an established career that would be disturbed by relocation, the kids are in great schools and at “that critical point” of social, educational and extra-curricular activity involvement and development; it is highly unlikely that any job offer will be compelling enough to get that family to move.

But, if the candidate is unhappy enough (or perhaps even unemployed), they will pursue an opportunity. The family may even say, “Yes, we will move if it’s the right thing to do,” all the while lighting candles and keeping their fingers crossed that they will not have to make that decision. But then, after much time and many interviews, an offer finally comes down. And when faced with the decision for real, they just can’t do it.
Thanks for wasting my time.

Pay and benefits have always been an issue and even more so these days. First of all, companies are under the misconception that there are so many unemployed and/or under-employed, qualified candidates on the market that they don’t need to make strong offers.
There are many other issues involving “low offers” which I will address in the next blog about the client’s role in delaying and/or de-railing the placement process. But for a variety of reasons, too often we are forced to present less than stellar offers to candidates. Add that to the candidate’s concerns about job security and barriers to relocation, and it makes it easy for the candidate to “just say no”. Thanks for wasting my time.

And then there is “Ennui”. (I always wanted to use that word in my blog.) It’s French for having a sense of boredom, listlessness or dissatisfaction. And I think it plays a significant role in the difficulty candidates seem to have in making a job change decision.
Here’s the problem in a nutshell, there are a lot of candidates who are unhappy in their career. But it’s not about their company; it’s about the career they have chosen. What they really want is a different career path, but they have so many years invested in logistics that they can’t afford to get completely out of the industry. Thus we see the sales person who wants to “move to the other side of the desk” and become a “supply chain manager” on the “shipper side”. Or the operations person, who is burned out on the grind and thinks they would make a great sales person (play golf, enjoy long leisurely lunches, drink a lot and work from a home office…come to think of it, that sounds a lot like headhunting…but I digress.)

My point is that unhappy candidates who want to make a significant career change are not good candidates for a search firm. Clients engage us to find candidates who have certain qualifications and accomplishments to fill a specific need within their organization. We are headhunters, not life coaches. I don’t mind giving advice to a candidate, but I do mind spending hours interviewing, evaluating, prepping for and debriefing from client interviews, convincing the client that this is the “right candidate, negotiating a great offer; finally getting to first and goal on the one yard line, only to have the candidate tell me that he really doesn’t want to play the game anymore. He wants to do something different; a job that is more rewarding, more fulfilling. Isn’t that special? Thanks for wasting my time.

Next week, I’ll write about how clients waste my time (unless I find something more interesting to write about…).

WWOOF

I took a few days off last week and traveled to the “Outback” of Far West Texas. It’s a region that includes Big Bend National Park, Big Bend Ranch State Park and has been the location for some of my favorite movies, most notably Giant and Fandango. I’ve been there before and should know better than to go after May 1 or before October 1, as the region is also part of what is known as the Chihuahuan Desert, except it’s not in Chihuahua (yet).

I could write about a lot of stuff related to the trip and to the region and may do so in the future. But, this week I think I’ll limit it to one subject…Wwoofing. I guess I’m just out of touch. I had no clue about Wwoofing. But, if you go far enough off of “the grid” you run across such things. First, you need to understand that those who visit Far West Texas are very different from those who live there. Those who visit are tourists who leave their money and wonder how anyone could live there year-round. Those who live there take the money and wonder why anyone would go there for vacation. And most of those who live there only use first names. This is either because they are so stoned they’ve forgotten their last names or they are in the federal witness protection program.

At any rate, a number of these desert inhabitants are in effect old hippies. Some are life-time hippies and some are retired folks who finally got to be hippies (they prefer survivalists) when they no longer needed real jobs to support themselves. And some are Wwoofers. Wwoofers are the new generation of hippie/hiker/hobos who roam from place to place exchanging organic farm labor for room and board. WWOOF is the acronym for Worldwide Opportunities on Organic Farms. As noted on their website www.wwoofusa.org:

“WWOOF farms offer a variety of educational opportunities, including growing vegetables, keeping bees, building straw bale houses, working with animals, making wine, and much more…..One-half day of volunteer help is traded for food and accommodation, with no money exchanged. This is not paid work on farms, it is an exchange of education and culture…Any farm, community, or garden project that is willing to host and accommodate volunteers can participate in our program. “

So if you are willing to join this grassroots organization, you too can become a Wwoofer or a Wwoofee. Wwoofing in Far West Texas can’t be easy. I don’t think the Mexican drug cartels support free market capitalism, so I suppose these folks are growing legal herbs and vegetables, raising goats and trying to grow grapes. Lord knows how they get enough water. But based on what I saw, what they do find is not wasted on baths and showers.

I actually had a conversation with a Wwoofer. This guy was in his early 30’s, originally from Berkeley CA (of course) and Hispanic. He was working his way to Costa Rica. In addition to Wwoofing he also had a part-time job at one of the local high-end restaurants. (Which meant that he actually did take a bath now and then. And yes, there are high-end restaurants in the “Outback”. Champagne, caviar and calf-fries.). The next leg of his journey was going due south into Mexico. He had reservations at a friend’s WWOOF farm/hostel/commune located somewhere near Durango. He already had three burros lined up and he was going to take the overland route. I said something about “The Treasure of Sierra Madre” and “no stinking badges” and he nodded and grinned replying “Blazing Saddles…cool”. I just said, “Yeah that too.”

Burros? Seriously? I asked if he was concerned about the drug cartels and other banditos he might encounter along the way. He said no worries; they could tell he didn’t have anything worth stealing. I noted that three burros elevated him to middle class status in that part of Mexico and even if they didn’t value the burros they might just shoot him for being stupid. He laughed and replied that it was something he had always wanted to do. He had been drifting around the States for almost a decade and was ready for a new adventure.

I don’t know if this guy was legit or not. He may be some local who grew up in Presidio and has never been farther away from home than Fort Stockton, but this had the makings of a great story. He said he was keeping a diary. If all went well, he would settle down in Costa Rica and open an organic vegetarian restaurant. I wished him well and urged him to “dream big and think franchising”.

My wife concluded that this guy was just a hustler, probably a switch-hitting male prostitute and that all this Wwoofing talk was bullshit. (Even after I looked up the WWOOF website, she still holds tight to the belief that he was trying to hustle or sell something other than key lime pie.) Maybe she is right, but I hope he makes it to Durango with his three burros and his diary and eventually gets to live out his dream in Costa Rica. I can’t wait to read the book.